Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Social Inclusion: A Critical Note through Cultural Perspective



A closer look to the recent ethnic movement in Nepal gives us an idea about two major components in the list of National Interest. As suggested by Dr Uddhav Pyakurel in his dissertation about these demands, he says, first is the federal structure government based on the principle of caste/ethnicity; and second is the social inclusion for the marginalized communities in every sector of the country. This shift in the ethnic movement can appear in more complicated face in the national level, as in Pyakurel’s words, this may invite further conflict inside Nepal. He suggests that the conflict begins at the point of territorial claims when more than one ethnic group tries to figure out their traditional territory. This very notion of ‘traditional territory’ in case of multi-culture, multi-caste and multi-ethnic Nepal can be very devastating later if not properly mitigated the possible risks now.

Identification of traditional territory and transferring ownership among ethnic communities is sure to become a pain in neck for the so called caretakers of the national political and social agendas. It can get tastier until chewed because political parties can influence their vote bank from the politics of identity, but at the point of swallow, it is sure to cause irritation. This irritation is in no way healthy for giving life to ‘Nation Building’ process in Nepal. One of the tragedy of current transition of Nepal is that ‘Inclusion’ and ‘Nation Building’ have been seen through naked eyes-which gives clear picture of what is being shown but does not portray what it might lead to, and what it took to exist at present. On the other hand, beauty of recent transition is that there is a revolutionary shift in the political awareness of people of every caste/ethnic groups who have been marginalized ever since the concept of ‘Modern Nepal’ emerged after Prithivi Narayan Shah. Referral can be made to Harka Gurung’s words, “the assertion of ethnic identities in today’s Nepal is not the emergence of a new phenomenon but rather the expression of what was latent in the earlier regimes.” For that reason, nation building through social inclusion has to be dealt with more criticality through different lenses, but with an aim to solve conflict, not lift.

Therefore, in this write up, I have tried to bring in the cultural perspective in understanding the very philosophy of inclusion. This cultural perspective, in this writing, prioritizes ‘nationalism’ as the heart of ‘nation building’. While doing so, the article develops argument that before bringing the nation building process through inclusion in the front desk, ‘tradition’/ ‘nationalism’ has to be looked upon more seriously because without constructing the national feeling among people, nation building process will be a mere lip service and inclusion will be a unimaginably distant reality. In the process, the paper will serve sufficient examples of inventing traditions for constructing nation. In the mean time, one may also feel that the paper has tried to sideline the relevance of ‘Inclusion’, but again, it depends with what lenses or mind setting we read arguments. All in all, the major attempt of this paper is to question what will be the common source of Nationalism for the diversified population of Nepal. Without constructing Nationalism, does mere politics of ‘Inclusion’ guarantee stabilized peace and nation building?